SoVote

Feb/1/24 12:50:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we have to axe the tax. People and Canadians are taxed into oblivion. Those bills I read into the record are asinine. We are being taxed on a tax. I go back to the butter. If we take away anything, it is the butter effect. It is melting away businesses and families. When butter goes from $2.49 to $7.49 in eight years, that is catastrophic. It is the one example of how the carbon tax does not work. We must get rid of the tax.

93 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/1/24 12:51:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I care about the price of butter. I am a cook, and I admit that I tend to go the Julia Child route: If there is more butter in the recipe, it never hurt anybody. I know the price of butter has gone really sky-high, but I just googled to check. The price of butter in both Canada and the U.S., in both countries, has increased dramatically. There is a reason, which I have dug into a bit because I was prompted. I wish Emily Mae's Cookies the very best. I double-checked, and we are not related. Her name is spelled “Mae” and I am “May”. Anyway, I wish her the best, but the price of butter in Canada and the U.S., where they do not have a carbon price, has gone sky-high. The explanation, when we look for it, is that the heat waves through the summer meant that cows produced less milk at the same time that consumer demand for dairy products like ice cream, because it was hot, went sky-high, so we ended up having a double whammy for dairy producers. I am meeting with dairy producers next week. I can ask them about it, but the price of butter in the U.S. ranges in U.S. dollars from $2.92 a pound to $8.76 a pound, which converts to Canadian dollars from $3.92 a pound to $11.57—

249 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/1/24 12:52:57 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha a few seconds to answer.

16 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/1/24 12:53:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I think if people have any conversation with these dairy farmers, they will say, without a doubt, that this carbon tax is crippling them. That is across the board. Bill C-234 is about that. That is what I would push back on. I would—

48 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/1/24 12:53:24 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

8 words

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 12:53:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I am standing here to speak against this motion. It is a motion that is so based on ideology. It would do great harm to Canadians. A carbon tax is regarded by a majority of economists and policy researchers to be the most simple and powerful tool to limit carbon dioxide emissions. It is based on a premise that the polluter pays, which is the basis for most of our just systems, that people who do harm pay for that harm. It taxes polluters. A price on pollution is not a new idea. Norway initiated a carbon tax in 1991, taxing 80% of all its fuel emissions. In fact, since then, its fuel consumption and greenhouse gases emissions have gone down by 25%. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries did this in 1997. In 1991, Sweden brought in a $177 Canadian per tonne carbon tax. That is six times what we pay now in Canada. Other countries like Denmark and Finland all initiated carbon taxes in 1991. Their greenhouse gas emissions have fallen considerably and their economies and jobs have improved and increased. I do not want to just talk about other countries globally. I want to talk about our own backyard. I want to talk about my province of British Columbia and the fact the it initiated a carbon tax in 2007. Since then, greenhouse gas emissions have gone down by 15%, and it has not harmed the economy. In fact, the British Columbia economy is one of the most vibrant in all of Canada. After seven years of having a carbon tax, B.C.'s GDP increased by 12.4%. During the 2008 recession, when the Conservatives were in government, B.C. outperformed the Canadian average, increasing its GDP by 12.4%. In fact, it is now one of the lowest GHG emitters in Canada. It is now thriving in its economy and moving upward. It has created 123,000 new jobs in the green tech sector. Those jobs are paying an average of $90,000 per capita. That is pretty good money. It is attracting a lot of young people to British Columbia to work in green tech. At the moment, it has attracted 300 new companies from around the world to invest in British Columbia. Why? Because of the premise of a carbon tax, which is a federal premise that is revenue-neutral that goes back in rebates. The rebates and the revenue neutrality has given British Columbia the ability to lower taxes on some economies and industries; the ability to lower personal income taxes; and the ability to pass on money to low and middle-income Canadians, who get back more money than they pay in their fuel consumption tax. What it is finding is that because of a low commercial and personal income taxes, 300 companies have invested in British Columbia. British Columbia has also invested in green technology, which is what the federal government is doing as well, which has created new, well-paying jobs. Lower and middle-income people, farmers and businesses benefit from that low tax rate and from rebates. They help families, businesses and farmers. I know that the World Bank and the United Nations have cited British Columbia as having the best tax in the world and is a model to follow. However, I know that party does not think well of the World Bank and would like to leave the United Nations. I hear that this is one of its plans. Therefore, I am going to cite somebody else whom the Conservatives might find more credible, which is the OECD. It says that the B.C. carbon tax is a “textbook” example of how to get it right. Let us balance that with what the tax is doing, how it is helping people and what it has done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with what the Senate committee said in its report called “Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods”. What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of climate change to us? Apparently, climate-change damage cost every Canadian $700 each year because of the money spent to remediate the problems we had with the fires and floods. In fact, we have had wildfires now for six years in British Columbia and two of those wildfires cost $720 million in insured losses last year, making it the most costly insured extreme-weather event the province has ever seen. Over the past 50 years, the costs of storms, floods and wildfires in Canada have risen from tens of millions of dollars to billions of dollars annually. Who pays that? Who helps out? It is the federal government. Therefore, that is costing us money. It is billions of dollars. In fact, in 2019 and 2010, the insured losses for catastrophic events were over $18 billion. With respect to the health costs, in Ontario alone, the health costs were shown to be $770 million last year because of the fires in Ontario. In British Columbia, when the floods occurred, the farmers, whom the Conservative Party says it cares about, lost millions and millions of dollars in farmland and in livestock, and the government had to help them. Both the B.C. and federal governments had to put money in to help these farmers out of their problems. A thousand farms in British Columbia were impacted in the floods last year, 15,000 hectares of land and $2.5 million in livestock in one flood. The Province of B.C. is still trying to calculate the loss of tourism due to the fires. I am not hearing anything from the Conservatives about what they would do about the extreme costs that governments have to bear and all the problems we face when we do this. Professor Tombe, an economist and public policy professor at the University of Calgary, said that if we were to axe the tax, as we have been hearing repeatedly from those people, it would benefit the highest-income bracket in Canada and be hardest on a “large fraction of low- and middle-income” families, and businesses. I want to end by quoting Mark Twain. He said, “Never let the [facts stand] in the way of a good story” or, in this case, a good bumper sticker. Let us talk about facts, and I brought facts to the table. Let us do away with the ideology, really do the math and clearly see that B.C. is the best example in the world as to what a carbon tax can do.

1124 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Feb/1/24 1:02:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will bring facts to the table. BCBC is a very reputable industry representative and it has been very concerned about where CleanBC is going. I will get to my question, but this is from BCBC's article, entitled “BCBC warns CleanBC will lead to ‘serious job losses’ on path to 2030”. The article states, “That data suggested that B.C.’s economy would be $28.1 billion smaller in 2030 due to the impact of CleanBC policies.” The member across the way swears that everything is going to be grand in B.C. Our economy is going to contract by almost $30 billion because of policies like this. Could the member please explain that?

124 words

Hon. Hedy Fry

Feb/1/24 1:03:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think I said it all in my speech, but I will reiterate it. BC Stats and Statistics Canada say that the B.C. economy rose by 12.4% when other economies in Canada were going down. They said that 300 new companies, since the tax took effect, are now moving into B.C. to work in green technology. We are looking at about 130,000 new jobs in B.C. and about $90,000 per capita. I have no idea what the member is talking about. The statistics prove it.

93 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/1/24 1:04:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found some aspects of my colleague's speech really interesting. She has done a great deal of research on this to justify the carbon tax, and I commend her for that. However, I would like to hear her thoughts on the following fact. In the last two federal budgets, the government introduced six tax credits that will total $83 billion by 2035. These tax credits are primarily intended for oil companies. What does she think of that? Is that okay? Should that money not be invested somewhere else? She was talking about climate change. Should investments not target climate action?

104 words

Hon. Hedy Fry

Feb/1/24 1:05:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that we do not just have a price on pollution. As we can clearly see, we are investing in green technologies across the country. In Quebec, B.C. and across the country, we are helping to build new industries. We are giving them start-up funds, we are moving them forward and they are growing extremely well. That is one of the things we are doing. At the same time, some of that money has to go to paying the costs. I just read the amounts out from the Senate report. The costs of fires and floods, the damage to farmers and livestock and the damage to families have to be reimbursed somehow. There is a cost of not having a carbon tax. There is a cost of climate change.

136 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/1/24 1:06:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that I agree with much of what was said around the impacts and costs of the climate crisis being experienced by people across the country and in my home province of British Columbia. One thing I noted was when the member talked about how if we use it, we should pay for it. I have one observation that contradicts that. Suncor, with carbon loopholes, paid one-fourteenth of what it should have paid last year in taxes. In fact, Canada's five biggest oil and gas companies had $38 billion in combined profits last year at the expense of Canadians. This is why my NDP colleagues have been calling on big oil to pay what it owes. I am wondering what the member can share around why the Liberals are continuing to protect the profits of big corporations instead of finally calling out big oil and gas to pay what they owe.

158 words

Hon. Hedy Fry

Feb/1/24 1:07:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think the Liberals are doing that anymore. They have moved to stop helping oil and gas companies. When I talked about British Columbia, one of the things that happened was that fuel usage went down by 16%, so it is not using as much fuel. We are investing in electric cars. Across the country, there is a whole highway that allows for the use of electric cars. We are putting money into the electric car industry and we are bringing down all the causes of pollution at the same time. It is not a one-shot deal. We cannot just poke at one thing. There are multiple factors that go into changing greenhouse emissions. It is something that this government is addressing. It is something that the British Columbian government addressed.

136 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 1:07:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this most esteemed House and to see many of my colleagues here this afternoon. On this opposition day, and in reference to the opposition motion, I have much to say. First off, as I stated yesterday in the House, the IMF has put out its economic forecasts for the year, for 2024-25. With our economic policies in 2024, we will be the top quartile for economic growth in the G7 and, for 2025, we will actually lead the G7 in the economic growth rate, in real GDP. As a very competitive person, whether it is through sports, working on Bay Street or Wall Street, or in all my experiences, I like to win. When we compete globally, with our economy, we need to win. Canada is winning. Through the many economic policies and pillars that we have put forward, we will continue to win. We will continue to grow a strong economy from the middle out and from the bottom up, not from the top down. We will grow an economy that works for all Canadians, with inclusive economic growth. It is February 1. February is my favourite month in many ways, although I prefer summer over winter. We know that, as of today, the Canadian dental program is going to be hitting another milestone. Seniors aged 72 to 76 in this country will be able to enrol in the Canadian dental program. Amazingly, 400,000 seniors had already signed up. Now we will get several hundred thousand more signing up. This will deliver real savings to seniors, both in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across this country. It is a very exciting thing that we are implementing, the way that it is being implemented, with the provider, Sun Life, working with the Canadian Dental Association. Day in and day out, Canadians expect us to do this: to work for them, strengthen our economy, make sure life is affordable and deal with the issues at hand. Another issue I would like to raise is that I was really happy to see that the European Union has reached a unanimous agreement to provide Ukraine, the brave Ukrainian people fighting for freedom and democracy, with a €50-billion package as they fight against the tyranny of Russia, the unjustified invasion by Russia into Ukraine's sovereignty. I would hope that, when this House again addresses the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, the opposition party stands with the brave Ukrainian soldiers and the brave Ukrainian people, who are fighting for their freedom and democracy. This would be much like what our allies, our friends and our NATO partners in the European Union are doing. It would be a real shame if the Conservative Party of Canada voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Another measure that we have introduced is the first home savings account. Over 500,000 Canadians have opened an account. This combines the great features of a TFSA and an RRSP. Making a contribution is tax deductible. It grows tax-free. When one pulls it out to buy one's first home in the years down the road, the withdrawals are tax-free. Again, this is another major measure that we have put in place. I could talk about the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I could talk about two middle-class income tax cuts that are literally providing nearly $10 billion of annual tax savings to Canadians. I could talk about a national early learning and child care plan. By September 2025, here in the province of Ontario, on average, day care fees will be $10 per day. My family is quite blessed in many ways, and our little one, Leia, goes to day care. The annual amount a family was paying at Leia's day care went from nearly $1,600 to $1,700 a month to, now, just a couple hundred bucks. This is in after-tax funds, so we can think about the before-tax calculation. Those are real savings. This is in collaboration with the Province of Ontario. Ontario's minister of education, who is my neighbour and a good friend, touts this plan and how great it is probably every other day. That is what Canadians expect. When I turn to pure economic policy, we have a AAA credit rating, of course. We have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio. We will have the strongest economic growth. What does that translate into for Canadians? It means strong and real wage growth, strong incomes and strong job growth. This is where we are going. We are going to the economy of tomorrow, and it is happening today. This is what we need to embrace. This is what climate change is pushing countries to do. It is leading countries to do this, not only here in Canada but also in the United States. Countries like China, Australia and the European Union are all going in that direction. When one thinks about climate change, one thinks about artificial intelligence. Canada is a leader. We are leading and will continue to do so. We have a great country filled with over 40 million wonderful people; every morning, whether in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge or across the country, these folks get up and want the best for their families and their kids. They want to make sure we keep this country on a track where inclusivity and economic growth are paramount, where every child has an opportunity to succeed and put the best foot forward in life. The following is with regard to the motion and so forth. Yes, I am pleased to take part in today's debate. My opposition colleagues want us to once again make it free to pollute in Canada. I wonder, though, how allowing people to pollute without cost would really make life more affordable for Canadians. How are we helping Canadians? With the carbon rebate, we know that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. We know that businesses continue to grow and 84% of the electricity generated in Canada is carbon-free. We know we are putting forward investment tax credits that will boost economic growth and generate clean electricity. I see some of my colleagues here from the east coast on the opposite side. There is Bill C-49 for such measures, which the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see put into law, that would generate economic activity. As I have said many times in this place, I love capitalism, growth and wealth creation. That is how one lifts all boats. I love free trade. Canada is a signatory to so many trade agreements. Up to a point in time, members opposite were in favour of free trade agreements, such as CETA, CUSMA and CPTPP. Now the world is dealing with climate change. In reality, I am not sure most of the members opposite believe in climate change or even in science anymore, unfortunately. Vaccines for polio and measles— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

1198 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/1/24 1:17:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I hear some heckling on the other side. Vaccines are required, and kids get them when they go to school. This is much like what we needed to do to fight COVID. This is where we are at today; this is the debate, so let us have a debate. We put forward a plan to fight climate change, as well as many measures in this House that are leading us in the right direction. We see the investments in the auto sector here in Ontario, such as the one announced by the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister in St. Thomas, a Conservative member's riding, with the Conservative MP cheering on this massive investment. However, the official opposition does not comment. It is the same thing with Bill C-49, so let us have a debate. In terms of putting a price on carbon, when one has an externality, one needs to internalize it and put a cost on it. We need to do that in a way that moves the economy forward and makes life more affordable for Canadians. This is exactly what leadership means. I look forward to answering some questions from the opposite side. It is always a pleasure to rise in this House. I want to wish the residents back home a wonderful day. To my wife and my three daughters, daddy will see them tomorrow night and we will have dinner together.

241 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Feb/1/24 1:17:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member is simple and straightforward. All indications tell us that the carbon tax is not working, and it is not reducing emissions. That is a very fundamental reason to scrap the tax and axe it. Does he believe the carbon tax is working?

50 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/1/24 1:18:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is really nice to see the hon. member for Edmonton Manning. He is a gentleman, and I consider him a dear friend in this House. I will say this: When we put forward a full plan to fight climate change, whether it is with innovation or putting a price on carbon, the parts are all interlinked. They all work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are leading the way with strong economic policies and internalizing the cost of an externality, according to Coase's theorem, if I go back to my graduate days in economics at university. That is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what we will continue to do. It is always great to see the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

129 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/1/24 1:19:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know full well that the Liberal government and the Conservatives get along just fine when it comes to doling out billions of dollars and tax breaks to Canadian oil companies. We know that the Minister of the Environment said that this government had abolished subsidies when in fact they never were abolished. The government nationalized the Trans Mountain pipeline, which has cost $30.9 billion to expand. Most of that cost will be passed on to taxpayers. I would like the member to explain to me what the government is going to do to improve the environment and the cost of living.

106 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/1/24 1:20:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, let me say that I support the oil sector across the country. I fully support the energy sector here in Canada and the over 800,000 workers who work in the sector. They are and will continue to be a crucial part of our economy as the experts of oil and gas, natural gas and so forth. The usage of these fuels will be critical for our economy for years to come, as the world adopts new sources of energy and electricity. It is very important. On the affordability front, the $10 day care and other benefits for Canadians, such as the child care benefit, are long-lasting measures that are going to be in place well after all of us have gone on to retirement in some shape or form. They will continue to benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

146 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/1/24 1:21:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had an important question, but then I got caught up, when the member was talking about how much he loved capitalism, in reflecting on the fact that we are here talking about solutions around the climate crisis. It is a little concerning to me that, when we are talking about a system that focuses on growth and profit at the expense of everything else, we are continuing to promote the reproduction of the system that is creating the climate crisis that we are in. I could go down a whole rabbit hole on that one. I wanted to ask about the greener homes grant. My colleague was talking about the emissions coming from residential buildings. Will there be further investment into the greener homes grant? What will be happening to ensure accessibility of this funding? We know that there were huge issues with people being unable to access the funds. Having to pay ahead, for example, is a barrier for people living on low incomes. Can you please tell me what the Liberals are committed to when ensuring that everybody has access—

186 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/1/24 1:22:12 p.m.
Watch

I will not be able to tell the hon. member anything. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

18 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273